Well, I hope someone in the conservative movement writes an article on the theological Scandal of Barack Obama's Mind because we can't have someone who combines that much hubris and moral ignorance in the White House. To quote that passage from the Gospel and deliberately exclude the unborn and unwanted children is so disgusting it is beyond words.

Did you catch that he wants the U.S. to fund "health programs" around the world to prevent orphans from being born (i.e., UN/World Health Organization abortion services). He's the Soros/UNICEF candidate for president. They want him heading the UN after finishing as president. He seems only to half understand the globaloney agenda, reading from cue cards in clumsy answers. It's like a kid in a fifth-grade Social Studies class repeating globalist propaganda from a UN or National Geographic documentary. How can the U.S. fund global "health programs" when many American citizens aren't even insured? It doesn't make any sense. Uninsured Americans are already paying taxes which go to FOREIGN AID???!!! And Obama wants more crackpot global socialism. The Dems just can't kill unborn children fast enough. They want more.

Have you seen the video linked in post #36? ... Writing a piece on the disconnect would be so easy. But whom would publish it? I have to post stuff like this at FR because no mainstream dnc propaganda outlet will touch it, even to cast aspersions at it!

43
posted on 08/17/2008 10:49:08 AM PDT
by MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)

In reference to your flag picture, nice btw, I have heard MANY folks disagree that that was just an ignorant or uneducated claim of the number of states in USA. Rather, they feel it is a slip of the tongue from someone used to, accustomed to, stating the term “57 states of islam.”

Corsi has done some of that in his book. You would expect National Review, The American Conservative, or a journal like First Things to examine and expose his bizarre ideas and the theology and leftist ideology behind it. Citing Matthew and excluding the unborn from the Lord's injunction is pretty weak theology. He has exposed himself with these gaffes in the civil forum. It's out there. Someone needs to create a site focused just on his gaffes and errors. From the "bitter" comment about people "clinging to guns and religion" to these latest gaffes on abortion and scripture.

It it's "above his pay grade" to know the answer about when children deserve constitutional protection, maybe he's not up to the job.

Obama is trying to put the best face he can to the Evangelicals, and the “social gospel” is the only thing he can offer them. Unfortunately, his past rhetoric on abortion and, what can only be termed infanticide, tells us that the face he is hiding from them is radical in the extreme. To think Republicans want to starve children, or deny minorities access to the middle class is typical of his liberal, racist-baiting campaign. To think Democrats support infanticide doesn’t seem so improbable, given their hard-line position on abortion. It has to be defended at all costs, even up to killing those babies who happen to survive the attempt to kill them.

Obama: I THINK AMERICA'S GREATEST MORAL FAILURE IN MYLIFETIME HAS BEEN THAT WE STILL DON'T ABIDE BY THAT BASIC RECEPT IN MATTHEW [caption Mathew chapter 25 31-46] THAT WHATEVER YOU DO FOR THE LEAST OF MY BROTHERS, YOU DO FOR ME.

IMHO Democrats should stop their 'What Would Jesus Do', 'Jesus Would Be A Democrat' and quoting Bible passages, or attempting to, all in order to push their socialist ideas. It's offensive and sacrilegious (grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred) - they are mocking God and Jesus with their selective picking and choosing.

But since Barry is so knowledgeable of 'Matthew' I'm sure he knows this part too....

Matthew 25, The Parable of the Ten Virgins

At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'

Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps.

The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'

'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'

But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!' But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'

Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour (wherein the Son of man cometh).

Lastly, Barry should remember this from Matthew 22: Tribute to Caesar

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them,

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Jesus would not be a democrat. And per The Parable of the Ten Virgins I don't think he'd believe in the dem's lust for taking things from others who 'have' to give to the slothful who 'want'.

50
posted on 08/17/2008 11:54:06 AM PDT
by Condor51
(I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)

If the unborn have personhood, they would at least fall into this catagory...

Obama was making exactly that point. In order to defend abortion rights, he believed that it is necessary to deny these "accidental births" rights. What seems to count in this twisted view is not the "personhood" of the infant, but the intentions of those trying to perform the abortion. They intended to kill it, therefore, it is not a person...

When a woman sues a man over paternity, the court sure doesn't focus on the birthday, they looked directly to the CONCEPTION day.

You would think a man who claims enough education to teach Constitutional Law would be able to connect 'fatherhood' and conception, and come up with a truthful answer of when there is a CHILD to be considered in issues of paternity. I mean, a woman can sue over paternity long before birthing a baby because the FATHERHOOD of the sperm donor can be proven by checking the genetic identity of the yet to be born CHILD, so there has to be a point of personhood --MORALLY--long before the birthing day.

If the alive unborn are not the least of our brethren and the least of Jesus' brethren, then Barack Hussein Obama ought to pick a different Bible verse to hang his demonically inspired Marxism upon. But God have mercy on that dolt if he fails to realize Jesus said doing to the least is doing unto Him.

60
posted on 08/18/2008 7:10:18 AM PDT
by MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.